On same-sex marriage and granting rights by popular opinion…

When Missouri passed a constitutional amendment defining
marriage as one man to one woman, I watched many a Missourian step forward and
spout bullshit about how traditional marriage was being threatened by same-sex
marriage and that marriage equality would destroy society and blah, blah, and
blah.

The amendment passed in 2004.

50 percent of Missouri marriages still end in divorce.

The only thing that vote changed was the
Missouri constitution.

North Carolina voters just used the ballot to bully same-sex couples
wanting the right to marry and I can guarantee that not a damn thing is going to change regarding marriage in North Carolina except the law.

Sigh.

Anyhoo, President Obama got a lot right when he stated his belief
that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry…

…but he got one big thing wrong.

This shit shouldn’t be left to the states…civil rights
should not be decided by popular vote.

Interracial dating and marriage still isn’t popular. I recall an embarrassing public outcry in St. Louiswhen the St. Louis Post-Dispatch put an
interracial couple on the cover of a magazine…and that was in 2009.

As for calls to move the Democratic National Convention from North
Carolina because of their vote, I’ll leave that to party members and convention
attendees to decide.

Just don’t come a’calling to St. Louis as an alternative because we were the runner up city.

If
marriage equality is the litmus test then Missouri fails that shit big time.
LGBT Missourians can be fired for being out…same-sex marriage is illegal and banned…and state
lawmakers want to make it illegal to discuss sexual orientation in schools.

Pause…consider…continue.

Missouri is, however, a shining example of what happens when
granting or denying civil rights is left up to the states to decide.

The gay marriage issue isn't certainly getting a lot of traction. Some liken it to a cheap trick (or at least and ingenuous one) on the part of the Obama campaign to curry political favor among the gay community, perhaps even garnering a few dollars for the campaign chest along the way. I'm not sure it's all that, but there's more to it than just a bunch of misguided mean people denying their fellow man (and woman) equal opportunity for marital bliss. Sanctioning gay marriage has the potential for possible broadening of the definition of marriage to include scenarios in which even gay people may be offended. Such as marriage between an adult and child; or the green light be given to polygamy (though why on earth anyone would want more than one husband or wife is beyond me). I know you comeback will be that no one would consider sanctioning adult/child relationships, but before you jump all over me it's not without precedent. In the middle ages, marriages were routinely consummated by the age of 12 or 13 and polygamy is vigorously practiced in some countries today (including right here in the ol' U-S-of-A). Besides, if someone told my grandparents in 1975 (the year they died) that homosexual marriage would be allowed in the not-to-distant future they would of thought you stark raving mad just as many would react today if you told them that adult/child relationships will be legal in the not too distant future. Today's improbable can easily become tomorrow's reality. Just how far are you willing to push the edges of those envelopes?

I don't think creating a tolerant, open society where anything goes will necessarily put us in a better place.

When it comes to gay marriage, two thoughts come to mind: you can't have your cake and eat it too and actions have consequences.

The latter seems to be a very tough pill for us to swallow these days, but maybe it's time we mustered the courage to at least try. It's about accountability, personal responsibility and the notion that all actions have consequences, some good, some bad. Be careful waht you ask for...

I rolled my eyes when I read your comment. I'm just going to say that your so called reasoning is incredibly shallow and thoughtless. Stating completely unfounded things like "Sanctioning gay marriage has the potential for possible broadening of the definition of marriage to include scenarios in which even gay people may be offended" doesn't make them true, especially when not providing any facts to back-up your baseless assertion. Also stating that people have, and currently do, practice underage and polygamist relationships doesn't prove that gay marriage will somehow legitimize the practices.

Marriage and all the legal and social repercussions of it, is (or should be) a right for two consenting adults. Polygamist relationships have been outlawed for the fact that usually all parties are not consenting to the arrangement and underage relationships have the same obvious problem. A problem that gay marriage does not have, because it related to two consenting adults.

I'm so sick and tired of people starting this slippery slope rant, really?, really? come on use a brain cell or two, take some fish oil, something, I don't know, just think for a second about how idiotic statements like that are, for once.